Utah Reverses Misconduct Finding On Referral Fee With Marketing Company

The Utah Supreme Court has held that there was insufficent evidence of a Rule 1.8(f) violation in a matter involving a referral from a non-attorney marketing company.

The company is Utah Legal Group, which is a non-firm represented here  by a non-lawyer, that “recruits paying clients for Utah attorneys.”

The case involved a client charged with trespass and assault. He received a solicitaion from ULG and met with the non-lawyer. The client’s mother testified that she was attracted by advertising that ULG would “kick ass” and “get things accomplished that no other firm could.”

The mother agreed to a $6,000 fee. She thought ULG was a law firm. The non-lawyer promised her that her son would not go the jail if she retained ULG. He also bad-mouthed the option of a public defender.

ULG paid the lawyer a $2,500 flat fee. He apparently did a credible job but the client got some jail time.

The mother still owed $1,600 after sentencing. She filed a complaint with the State Bar consumer service seeking a refund. The State Bar initiated an investigation.

The court here reversed the finding of a violation of Rules 1.8(f) and 8.4(a) and the sanction of private admonishment. The court found that the Bar failed to prove that the attorney had not secured the client’s informed consent to the fee arrangement.

in Utah, such consent does not have to be confirmed in writing.

The court also held that Rule 8.4(a) provided no independent basis to find misconduct. (MIke Frisch)